Gen-ART Review Assignments for 05 July 2007

Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2007-07-05).

Updated 23:1:59 EDT, June 28, 2007

2. Protocol Actions

Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a
reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet
infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?"

2.1 WG Submissions

2.1.1 New Item

Area	Date
RAI		Session Initiation Protocol Package for Voice Quality Reporting Event (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 5
		draft-ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Jon Peterson
	Reviewer:	Scott Brim (already reviewed for LC)

RAI		ENUM Validation Token Format Definition (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 5
		draft-ietf-enum-validation-token-03.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Jon Peterson
	Reviewer:	Brian Carpenter

OPS		Bidirectional Flow Export using IPFIX (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 5
		draft-ietf-ipfix-biflow-05.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Nevil Brownlee is the proto-shepherd
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Christian Vogt (reviewed -04 for LC)

OPS		RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 5
		draft-ietf-radext-rfc4590bis-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: A revised version of non-normative Section 6 (Examples) will be provided in order to fix problems detected during the Last Call.
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Gonzalo Camarillo (already reviewed for LC)

OPS		Common Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 5
		draft-ietf-radext-fixes-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Dan Romascanu
	Reviewer:	Spencer Dawkins

2.1.2 Returning Item

Area	Date
INT		DHCP Server Identifier Override Suboption (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
		draft-ietf-dhc-server-override-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Bringing this document back to agenda, hopefully with the past issue solved
	Token:	Jari Arkko
	Reviewer:	Suresh Krishnan (John Loughney reviewed -03 in Feb 2006)

TSV		Definitions of Managed Objects for Middlebox Communication (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
		draft-ietf-midcom-mib-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]
		Note: Needs positions from the new people. SEC-DIR Reviewer: Radia Perlman (Radia.Perlman@sun.com) WG Shephard Melinda Shore
	Token:	Magnus Westerlund
	Reviewer:	Joel Halpern (already reviewed)

2.2 Individual Submissions

2.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
SEC		On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
		draft-williams-on-channel-binding-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Sam Hartman
	Reviewer:	Eric Gray (reviewed -01 for LC)

GEN		An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated Encryption (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2
		draft-mcgrew-auth-enc-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	Eric Gray (LC ends 6/28)

2.2.2 Returning Item
NONE

3. Document Actions

3.1 WG Submissions

Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"

3.1.1 New Item
NONE
3.1.2 Returning Item
NONE

3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD

Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"

3.2.1 New Item

Area	Date
SEC		Identity-Based Cryptography Standard (IBCS) #1: Supersingular Curve Implementations of the BF and BB1 Cryptosystems (Informational) - 1 of 2
		draft-martin-ibcs-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Tim Polk
	Reviewer:	David Black (reviewed -03 for LC)

APP		Reclassification of the APEX RFCs to Historic (Informational) - 2 of 2
		draft-mrose-apex-historic-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]
	Token:	Chris Newman
	Reviewer:	Christian Vogt (reviewed -01 for LC: Ready)

3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE

3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor

The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.

Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on
to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.

3.3.1 New Item
NONE
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE